Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are retained for only 7 days, and this endpoint returns only the 'free summary' rather than full detail. It does not explain what happens once the 7-day window lapses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences: what it does, when to call it, and the retention constraint. Front-loaded with zero filler and every sentence carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload, yet 'free summary' is left undefined in terms of fields or shape. Retention is disclosed, but behavior when the scan is still running at request time or after expiry is unstated for a tool with no output contract.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The scan_ref returned by scan_url'. The description repeats that provenance rather than adding format, length, or validity rules, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves the free summary of a ShipLatch scan, keyed by scan_ref. The word 'summary' plus 'free' signals it is a limited view, which is meaningful. It references scan_url as the origin of the ref but never contrasts against list_checks, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when scan_url returned status "running"', which tells the agent the polling scenario this serves. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., list_checks) is provided, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.